Its work transcended the parameters of individual category awards because of its ramifications and impact. The judges said the fact that it polarised opinion even within the press showed how important it was.
It was the view of the judges that it showed courage in producing the most impactful piece of journalism during 2013 with a story of global significance that went to the heart of the debate on press freedom. The unanimous decision of the judges was that the best of British national newspapers in 2013 was The Guardian.

This was the British Press Awards citation a year ago when it honoured the Guardian for its Snowden files coverage. Rob Evans and Paul Lewis were also honoured for their work on the NSA leaks, winning the news reporter of the year prize for what the judges described as their "incisive and genuinely sensational stories with eyebrow-raising power".
The Guardian and the reporters have made the most of the material: if you search for "Edward Snowden" on the paper's website, Google will turn up more than 600,000 results (which is not, of course, the same as 600,000 stories). There is the stunning interactive"NSA files decoded", which earned the paper the digital award at the Press Awards and the innovation prize at the British Journalism Awards in December. There are stories, analyses, interviews, debate, commentary, links to books - masses of them.
Oh yes, and there was that Pulitzer Prize. And the European Press Award. And the Orwell Prize. And the Paul Foot award. And the Right Livelihood award....
But as the Press Awards judges noted last spring, Edward Snowden's leaks polarised public opinion and the newspaper industry.

The Daily Mail has never been the Guardian's greatest fan, nor has it been shy about saying what it thinks about the paper or Snowden. To the Guardian he is a whistleblower, to the Mail a traitor.
Over recent months, the Mail has seized every opportunity to attack the Guardian - examples include a Saturday essay by Stephen Glover on Nick Davies - "the man who did for the British Press" - and even a dig over an art critic who dared to express a contrary opinion on the Tower of London poppies. Last week a leader about Nick Clegg's call for a "public interest" defence for journalists who wind up in court turned into an attack on the Guardian and its "almost psychotic hatred of a commercially viable free press".
Today the paper leads on a Snowden television interview in which he avoids answering questions about whether he had read all the documents he leaked. The tone of the story leaves the reader in no doubt of the Mail's opinion of Snowden:

Traitor Edward Snowden has revealed he did not read all the top-secret intelligence documents he leaked – a move which put lives at risk from terrorists. In a television interview the fugitive squirmed as he admitted only ‘evaluating’ the files stolen from GCHQ and the US National Security Agency.

The story turns to page 4, where the basement is about the Guardian and a change of online heading on the story - from "Edward Snowden tells John Oliver he did not read all leaked NSA material" to "John Oliver presses Edward Snowden on whether he read all leaked NSA material". As the Mail says, a definite watering down. But the Guardian says that's because the first heading was inaccurate. Also true, as you can see for yourself in the video at the top.
The Mail leader writers are again called into action to opine that the paper is a passionate defender of free speech, but that this has to be balanced against public safety. A view with which few would take issue. But, as ever, it has to be coupled with a swipe at the Guardian and its "supreme arrogance".

So far, so par for the course. But SubScribe has questions for both papers.
First, why is the Mail splashing on this story, other than as a vehicle with which to attack a paper that it despises? Do its readers care? A former Mail Online writer who contacted SubScribe after the James King "My year of ripping off the web" blog noted that she had never seen any news organisation so influenced by readers' whims. Stories on the website's home page were moved up and down according to the number of clicks, she said. As I write this, the Snowden story does not feature on the home page at all. And I have scrolled up and down three times to make sure.
Second, why did the Guardian not publish anything in its print edition on the Snowden interview? For the past two years, his every utterance has been deemed newsworthy - the paper even splashed on his opinion of proposed British surveillance laws. But while this latest story appears online, it is nowhere to be found in the newspaper.

This spat is hugely entertaining for journalists. But in their coverage - and non-coverage - of this story, both papers have been following their own agendas without any regard for the reader.
And that is unforgivable.

Liz Gerard

New year, new face: it's time to come out from behind that Beryl Cook mask. I'm Liz Gerard, and after four decades dedicated to hard news, I now live by the motto "Those who can do, those who can't write blogs". These are my musings on our national newspapers. Some of them may have value.